Performance Measurement Work Group Meeting 01/17/2018

Transcription

1 Performance Measurement Work Group Meeting 01/17/2018

2 Agenda RY 2020 MHAC DRAFT FINAL Policy Modeling Additional Stakeholder feedback? RY 2020 RRIP Improvement Target National Forecasting (data delays); Cushion; Conversion to All-Payer (UPDATED Math) Attainment Target (UPDATED data and targets) Re-calibrate Improvement Target with final CY 2017 data? Available from CMS on or around April TCOC Model Measurement Strategy Discussion 2

3 Maryland Hospital Acquired Complications (MHAC)

4 RY 2020 DRAFT MHAC Policy Staff presented draft policy to Commission on 1/10/2018 Staff proposes minimal changes for RY 2020: Continue to use established features of the MHAC program in its final year of operation. Continue to set the maximum penalty at 2% and the maximum reward at 1% of hospital inpatient revenue. Updates to RY 2020 MHAC Policy: Raise the minimum number of discharges required for pay-for-performance evaluation in each APR-DRG SOI category from 2 discharges to 30 discharges. Exclude low frequency APR-DRG-PPC groupings from pay-for-performance. Establish a subgroup that will consider Hospital-acquired Complications for RY 2021 and beyond. 4

5 Rate Year 2020 Timeline Base Period = FY 2017 Used for normative values for case-mix adjustment Performance Period = CY 2018 Grouper Version: 3M APR-DRG and PPC Grouper Version 35 Fiscal Year FY16- Q3 FY16- Q4 FY17- Q1 FY17- Q2 FY17- Q3 FY17- Q4 FY18- Q1 FY18- Q2 FY18- Q3 FY18- Q4 FY19- Q1 FY19- Q2 FY19- Q3 FY19- Q4 FY20- Q1 FY20- Q2 FY20- Q3 FY20- Q4 Calendar Year CY16- Q1 CY16- Q2 CY16- Q3 CY16- Q4 CY17- Q1 CY17- Q2 Quality Programs that Impact Rate Year 2020 MHAC MHAC Base Period CY17- Q3 CY17- Q4 CY18- Q1 CY18- Q2 CY18- Q3 CY18- Q4 MHAC Performance Period CY19- Q1 CY19- Q2 CY19- Q3 CY19- Q4 CY20- Q1 CY20- Q2 Rate Year Impacted by MHAC Results 5

6 MHAC Program Concern MHAC may penalize random variation in PPC occurrence, as opposed to poor performance, due to an increasing number of APR-DRG SOI cells with a normative value of zero Program has a very granular indirect standardization Complications are measured at the diagnosis and severity of illness level (APR-DRG SOI), of which there are approximately 1,200 combinations before considering clinical logic and PPC variation. Program rebases every year Assesses observed complications using a more recent baseline, which is only one year of evaluation that has multiple years of improvement built into it 6

7 Zero norm issue has always existed in MHAC, but has increased over time RY Zero Norms Total Cells % Zero of Total Cells Cells with Norms % Zero of Cells with Norms RY ,418 80, % 50, % RY ,503 57, % 37, % 7

8 MHAC Modeling Model 1: Raise minimum number of at-risk discharges per APR-DRG SOI from 2 to 30 discharges Model 2: Raise minimum number of at-risk discharges per APR-DRG SOI cell from 2 to 30 discharges Restrict to the APR-DRG-PPC groupings where at least 80% of PPCs occur in the base to reduce number of cells with a norm of zero in the base period, 8

9 80% APR-DRG-PPC Groupings Proposal maintains current methodology but restricts P4P program assessment to the types of patients and PPCs where at least 80% of complications occur. Advantages Reduces the number of cells with a normative value of zero Aligns P4P incentives with quality improvement initiatives, which may increase provider engagement Disadvantages Removes APR-DRGs and PPCs where up to 20% of PPCs occur Does not match waiver test, under which MD must continue to report PPCs for all patients 9

10 Selection of APR-DRG-PPC Groupings Groupings: All combinations of APR-DRG (328) and clinically eligible PPC included in payment program (44 PPC/PPC combos). Example: APR-DRG 720 Septicemia + PPC 14 Cardiac Arrest APR- DRG PPC Observed PPCs (sorted % of Total Cumulative highest to lowest) Observed PPCs Percent % 23% % 41% % 53% % 64% % 75% % 80% % 86% % 90% % 95% % 98% % 99% % 100% Total PPCs Included in Payment Program Excluded

11 MHAC Modeling Results Model # Model Description Statewide Total At-Risk Discharges Statewide Total PPCs PPC Rate per 1,000 Discharges % Zero Norm 1 2 >30 change only > % APR-DRG-PPC Combos 13,220,025 8, % 5,405,445 7, % Model 2 retains 85.5% of eligible PPCs in base period. All APR-DRG-PPC Groupings removed have 1 or 0 PPCs Significant reduction in the number of at-risk discharges 11

12 MHAC Scores Model 1 Model 2 12 Scores are calculated using better of attainment/improvement with RY 2019 Base (Oct15-Sep16); RY 2019 Performance YTD (Jan17-Sep17)

13 MHAC Revenue Adjustments Model 1 Model 2 Model # Model Description Statewide Penalties Statewide Rewards Net Revenue Adjustments 1 >30 At-Risk Discharges M 6.1 M -7.3 M 2 > % APR-DRG-PPC Groupings -3.7 M 14.1 M M Count of Hospitals in the Penalty, Reward, or Revenue Neutral Zone by Model 13 Revenue adjustments are based on scores using better of attainment/improvement with RY 2019 Base (Oct15-Sep16); RY 2019 Performance YTD (Jan17-Sep17)

14 RY 2020 PPCs MHA and other stakeholders have requested several changes to the PPCs included in the payment program. Staff has also evaluated status of PPCs included Staff recommends: No change to serious reportable events, monitoring only PPC list, or tier assignments. No changes to combos except for the creation of a 3 rd combination PPC that includes three infection PPCs that get dropped under current or proposed 80% models. These are revised recommendations from last month s PMWG; staff has decided on no changes given the magnitude of the 80% change. For more detailed information regarding specific PPC considerations, please see handout. 14

15 RY 2020 Revenue Adjustment Scale Based on staff recommendation and commissioner input, staff are proposing no change to the linear RY 2019 scale. MHAC Revenue Adjustments Statewide Penalty Statewide Reward Statewide Net Impact RY18 Scores under RY18 scale RY18 Scores under RY19 Scale RY19 YTD under RY19 Scale $0 -$ 1,914,322 -$ 9,484,222 $34,745,216 $13,006,968 $ 4,970,906 $34,745,216 $11,092,646 -$ 4,513,315 Option 2: Full Scale with Neutral Zone Final MHAC Score Revenue Adjustment % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 15 Penalty threshold: 0.45 Reward Threshold 0.55

16 RY 2020 MHAC Draft Recommendations Continue to use established features of the MHAC program in its final year of operation; Set the maximum penalty at 2% and the maximum reward at 1% of hospital inpatient revenue; Raise the minimum number of discharges required for pay-forperformance evaluation in each APR-DRG SOI category from 2 discharges to 30 discharges (NEW!); Exclude low frequency APR-DRG-PPC groupings from pay-forperformance (NEW!); and Establish a complications subgroup to the Performance Measurement Workgroup (NEW!). 16

17 Complications in New Model Update

18 Process Update: Complications under the New Model General feedback Summary: Some support to moving to federal (national) complications measures (not methodology) Some support for retaining some PPCs that are determined to be more reliable, valid and clinically significant complications Other considerations Alternatives to PPC or HAC measures Data source(s) for measures Sub-group to review scoring of measures and risk adjustment methodologies Payment scaling approaches also need to be considered

19 Next Steps: Complications under the Total Cost of Care Model HSCRC procured a vendor to convene a sub-group of clinical and performance measurement experts. Sub-group will build plan to measure and report clinical adverse events/complications under the Total Cost of Care Model Scope will include specifying measurement principles and recommending potential all-payer, clinically valid complication measures, including risk adjustment Anticipated timeline: HSCRC is accepting Member Nominations due Jan 22! Sub-group will meet approximately monthly beginning in February 2018 Sub-group will recommend measures options to the PMWG by early Fall 2018 PMWG to develop payment adjustment methodology Fall 2018 Timeline subject to change

20 Readmission Reduction Incentive Program (RRIP)

21 Readmission Reduction Incentive Program Payment program supports the waiver goal of reducing inpatient Medicare readmissions to national level, but applied to all-payers. Case-Mix Adjusted Inpatient Readmission Rate Day All-Payer All-Cause All-Hospital (both intra- and inter-hospital) Chronic Beds included Exclusions: Same-day and next-day transfers Rehabilitation Hospitals Oncology discharges Planned readmissions (CMS Planned Admission Version 4 + all deliveries + all rehab discharges) Deaths

22 Monthly Case-Mix Adjusted Readmission Rates 16.00% 14.00% ICD % 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% Case-Mix Adjusted Medicare All-Payer Readmissions FFS RY 2018 Improvement (CY13-CY16) % -9.92% CY 2016 YTD thru Oct 11.81% 12.67% CY 2017 YTD thru Oct 11.58% 12.07% CY16 - CY17 YTD -1.98% -4.74% RY 2019 Improvement through Oct % % 0.00% All-Payer Medicare FFS 22 Note: Based on final data for Jan 2012 Sep 2017; Preliminary Data for Oct-Nov Statewide improvement to-date is compounded with complete RY 2018 and RY 2019 YTD improvement.

23 Change in All-Payer Case-Mix Adjusted Readmission Rates by Hospital 10% Cumulative change CY 2013 CY CY 2016 YTD to CY 2017 YTD through October 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% -35% -40% -45% Hospital Statewide Target Statewide Improvement Goal of 14.5% Modified Cumulative Reduction 23 Hospitals are on Track for Achieving Improvement Goal Additional 4 Hospitals on Track for Achieving Attainment Goal 23Note: Based on Final data for Jan Sep 2017, Prelim through Nov 2017.

24 Medicare Readmissions Rolling 12 Months Trend 18.00% Readmissions - Rolling 12M through Aug 17.50% 17.00% 16.50% 16.00% 15.50% 15.00% 14.50% 14.00% Rolling 12M 2012 Rolling 12M 2013 Rolling 12M 2014 Rolling 12M 2015 Rolling 12M 2016 Rolling 12M 2017 National 15.93% 15.52% 15.40% 15.46% 15.35% 15.33% Maryland 17.71% 16.83% 16.54% 16.10% 15.72% 15.29% 24

25 Proposed Timeline Base Period: CY 2016 Used for normative values for case-mix adjustment Performance Period: CY 2018 Grouper Version: APR-DRG Grouper Version 35 25

26 Flowchart of Predicting Improvement Target Step 1 Test Past Accuracy of Medicare Predictive Models Step 2 Project CY 2018 National Medicare rates Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Add a cushion to Medicare projections Convert MD Medicare (projected) reduction to All- Payer Improvement Target Compound Improvement Target (RY 2020) with Improvement (RY 2018) 26 HSCRC expects to have more recent data to improve predictions for final policy.

27 Step 1: Testing Past Accuracy of Forecasting Models We tested the predictive accuracy of 7 forecasting models, and selected the Average Annual Change to forecast the National Medicare Readmission Rate at end of CY Predicted Rates Year Actual Rate Average Annual Change Most recent annual change (cummulative CY rates) 12 MMA 24 MMA PROC FORECAST ARIMA STL % 15.24% 15.24% 15.90% % 14.93% 15.01% 15.51% 15.66% 14.91% 15.21% 15.28% % 15.22% 15.60% 15.42% 15.41% 14.83% 15.57% 15.48% % 15.20% 15.35% 15.47% 15.46% 14.96% 15.61% 15.47% For today s modeling, we have averaged the 7 forecasting models output for CY Last month we selected AAC forecasted rate. 27

28 Step 2: Projecting National Medicare Rate Average of Projections for CY 2018 National Readmission Rate is ~15.24%. In previous years, MD slowed improvement in second half of year. Range of CY 2018 estimates is 15.01% to 15.32%. Model AAC MRAC 12MMA 24MMA PROC ARIMA STL CY % 15.27% 15.31% 15.32% 15.01% 15.21% 15.27% For purposes of today s meeting, we are using the simple average of the seven models. Last month, we used the AAC, which at that time was 15.25%. 28

29 Step 2: Projecting National Medicare Rate National Medicare Year Rate CY % CY % CY % CY % CY17 (est. based on Avg. of Projections) 15.29% Projections of National Model Rate AAC 15.27% MRAC 15.27% 12MMA 15.31% 24MMA 15.32% PROC 15.01% ARIMA 15.21% STL 15.27% Avg of Models 15.24%

30 Step 3: Cushion for CY 2018 Predictions Per discussions, we will include a cushion in our predictive methodology to ensure waiver test is achieved at end of CY 2018 Cushion is modeled at 0.1% reduction from prediction, and 0.2% reduction. Both cushions are assuming that the prediction methodology is under-predicting the National Readmission Rate improvement for CY Need to be conservative in predictions in final year of Model. Predicted Predicted Trend % Predicted Trend % Trend Cushion Cushion CY 2018 National Readmission Rate 15.24% 15.14% 15.04% 30

31 Step 3: Cushion for CY 2018 Predictions Calculate the reduction in MD Medicare Readmission rate that will reach the projected National Rate. MD Medicare rate in CY 2016 was 15.60%. To reach the projected national numbers by CY 2018, MD Medicare Readmissions must reduce by: Predicted Trend Predicted Trend % Cushion Predicted Trend % Cushion CY 2018 National Readmission Rate 15.24% 15.14% 15.04% MD Medicare Improvement Necessary from CY 2016 to reach CY 2018 National Readmission Rate -2.32% -2.96% -3.60% 31 Calculations may be vary due to rounding; Improvement Target inputs are not truncated until final step.

32 Step 4: Conversion to All-Payer Target Once MD Medicare reduction target is determined, need to calculate corresponding All-Payer reduction. Multiple methods used to Compare MD Medicare and MD All-Payer Readmission Trends Simple difference: MD Medicare reduction is approximately 3.65% less than corresponding reduction in All-Payer (CY 17 projected compared to CY 13 observed) Last month, this constant was 2.01%. Ratio of difference: MD Medicare reduction is approximately 70% of All-Payer reduction (CY 17 projected compared to CY 13 observed) Last month, this constant was 81%. Additional Ratios: Iterative analysis of ratio of MD Medicare (Unadjusted) to MD Casemix-Adjusted All-Payer yields a ratio constant of 50.4%. We did not present this constant last month. For the RY 2019 policy, this constant was 61% 32

33 Step 4: Conversion to All-Payer Target Further explanation of Simple Conversion Factor Calculations: Predicted Trend MD Medicare Readmission Change CY13-CY17 (projected) -8.59% All Payer Readmission Change CY13- CY17 (projected) % 1. All Payer Adjustment Factor (Simple Difference) 3.65% 2. All Payer Adjustment Factor (Ratio Difference) 70% 3. All Payer Adjustment Factor (Iterative Ratio Difference) 50.4% 33

34 Step 4: Conversion to All-Payer Target Conversion yields the following output: Predicted Trend % Cushion Current suggestion to Model with -5.56% CY 2018 compared to CY Last month, the outputs yielded a suggested -4.21% improvement. Predicted Trend % Cushion Predicted Trend CY 18 Medicare FFS Readmission Rate Reduction Target Compared to CY % -2.96% -3.60% Method 1: Add difference in rates of change to FFS target (-3.65%) -5.97% -6.61% -7.25% Method 2: Use ratio of changes in rates to scale FFS target (70%) -3.30% -4.21% -5.13% Method 3: Incremental Ratio (50.4%) -4.60% -5.87% -7.14% Average of Conversion Methods % -5.56% -6.51% Currently, we are simply averaging the output of Methods

35 Improvement Target RY 2019 Improvement Target WITH Compounded Target ~14. 10% Original Improvement Target (without compounding) was 14.50% RY 2020 Modeled Improvement Target (-5.56%) compounded with experienced RY 2018 Improvement (-10.75%) yields: RY 2020 Improvement Target: (15.72%) ~ % Last month, this total cumulative improvement was projected to be 14.51%. 35

36 Flowchart of Predicting Attainment Target Step 1 Take Current All-Payer Casemix-Adjusted Readmission Rates Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Adjust these rates for Out-of-State Readmissions Using CMMI data, the ratio is as follows: Total Readmissions InState Readmissions Calculate the 25 th and 10 th percentiles for the statewide distribution of scores 25 th Percentile is threshold to receive attainment point rewards 10 th Percentile is benchmark to receive maximum attainment point rewards Adjust benchmark and threshold downward 2.33%, per principles of continuous quality improvement 36

37 Attainment Target Calculation Outputs Currently modeled using Case-Mix Adjusted Readmissions Rates preliminary through November, with Readmissions through October. (Out-of-State Ratios currently Sept 2016-Aug 2017, given CMMI data runout). CY17 Jan-Oct With Cushion%* CYTD17 Top 10% 10.40% 10.15% CYTD17 Top 25% 10.96% 10.70% *2.33% cushion based on 2% cushion adjusted for 14 months 37

38 RY 2019 Revenue Adjustment Scales RY 2020 Improvement Scale All Payer Readmission Rate Change CY13-CY18 The improvement scale uses the slope of the RY 2018 scaling, adjusted for the RY 2020 reward/penalty cut point. RY 2020 Improvement Target 15.72% 38 RRIP % Inpatient Revenue Payment Adjustment A B GREATER Improvement 1.0% % 1.0% % 0.5% % 0.0% % -0.5% -5.22% -1.0% 0.03% -1.5% 5.28% -2.0% LESSER Improvement -2.0% RY 2020 Attainment Scale All Payer Readmission Rate CY18 The attainment scale calculates maximum rewards at the 10 th percentile of performance for most recent performance (adjusted to CY 2017), and maximum penalties are linearly scaled based on max reward and reward/penalty cut point. RY 2020 Attainment Target 10.70% These targets will be updated with refreshed data between Draft and Final Policies. RRIP % Inpatient Revenue Payment Adjustment A B LOWER Readmissions 1.0% 10.15% 1.0% 10.43% 0.5% 10.70% 0.0% 10.98% -0.5% 11.25% -1.0% 11.52% -1.5% 11.80% -2.0% HIGHER Readmissions -2.0%

39 TCOC Model Measure Strategy Discussion

40 Extension of the All-Payer Model CMS has granted a one-year extension of the existing Maryland All-Payer Model announced on Jan 8, 2018 What this means for Quality Programs Full Steam Ahead! First order of business is to finalize updates to the quality programs for RY 2020 Readmission and PAU Consider by mid-2018 risk adjustment or additional protections can be done for ED measures in QBR program 40

41 CY 2018 PMWG- Program Strategies Under the TCOC Model In 2018, Quality team will work with Performance Measurement Work Group on the following priorities: Revamp Maryland clinical adverse events/hospitalacquired complications Sub-group beginning February 2018 to consider appropriate all-payer complication measures, scoring, and risk adjustment Re-envision Readmissions Measure Analyze concerns over exceeding optimal readmission rate Consider new inclusions (specialty hospitals, observation stays) Consider admission rates per capita Build program to incentivize Population Health Improvement Monetize population health improvements and further provider alignment 41

42 CY 2018 PMWG- Program Strategies Under the TCOC Model In 2018, Quality team will work with Performance Measurement Work Group on the following priorities (continued): Expand definition of Potentially Avoidable Utilization Through existing program or modified approach Consider additional modifications to overall Quality programs Analyze scoring and scaling methodologies for each program Service-line approach - continue to consider measures specific to certain patient populations/procedures (Cancer, Orthopedic Surgery, Deliveries, etc.) Electronic Medical Records consider moving towards use of clinical data 42

43 Our next Performance Measurement Work Group Meeting is scheduled to take place Wednesday, February 21 st 2018 at 9:30 AM

44 Contact Information